Red State Rules!

[red states rule]

Man, this is going to be tough. I know a little to little on some subjects, but I'll do my best. I'll also try to do this without much of elaboration. So where you read a "yes" or "no" there might be a whole lot to say about it.

Here goes:

You almost ran the table Eric. How does government create jobs?

If government cuts taxes (as Pres Bush did) you will have economic growth, and companies will add workers.

This simple economic fact worked for JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Pres Bush.

Not only that, Dems are scratching their pointy heads trying to understanred how tax cuts caused a large increase in revenues to the US Treasury Revenues are up double digits (with 5.5%, 14.5%, and 11.7% increases in fiscal 2004, 2005, and 2006)

Alas, we are now stuck with Pelosi and Co who are foaming at the mouth to raise taxes for the "common good"

 

[Annie]

So... on what level would a desicion over a bridge (for instance) be made?

If the bridge is intrastate, it should be at the state level-often county or city level. However, as we saw in Alaska, that doesn't stop feds on pork, even if the bridge goes to 'no where.'

 

[ErikViking]

You almost ran the table Eric. How does government create jobs?

If government cuts taxes (as Pres Bush did) you will have economic growth, and companies will add workers.

This simple economic fact worked for JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Pres Bush.

Not only that, Dems are scratching their pointy heads trying to understanred how tax cuts caused a large increase in revenues to the US Treasury Revenues are up double digits (with 5.5%, 14.5%, and 11.7% increases in fiscal 2004, 2005, and 2006)

Alas, we are now stuck with Pelosi and Co who are foaming at the mouth to raise taxes for the "common good"

So? What am I according to the test?

How does government create jobs? Well, actually I was thinking about how my government does little to create businesses, but they create some jobs for long-term unemployed. So I guess I would like a "no", but it is a "yes".

 

[ErikViking]

If the bridge is intrastate, it should be at the state level-often county or city level. However, as we saw in Alaska, that doesn't stop feds on pork, even if the bridge goes to 'no where.'

I think it is a major difference between our governments due to size of the population. I will try to remeber that when you say "government" you refer to something very different than I do...

 

[red states rule]

You scored a 90% so you are NOT a kook lib

Lets try some other questions more basic questions

1) Do you support Judges who will interpert law and not create laws from the bench?

2) Do you support programs that follow terrorist money and listen to terrorist phone calls?

3) Do you believe the world would be safer with Saddam in power?

4) Do you think it is fair the people who use government services the least pay the most in taxes?

5) Do you think it is fair the people who use government the most pay the least in taxes?

 

[ErikViking]

Allright not a kook lib! Just a lib.
Okay fine, I will try, but I will refine my answers a bit more.

You scored a 90% so you are NOT a kook lib

Lets try some other questions more basic questions

1) Do you support Judges who will interpert law and not create laws from the bench?
We have a different court system. I only know yours from like O.J. trial an movies. But common sense would be a "yes". You can't convict someone for a crime that wasn't a crime before the action.

2) Do you support programs that follow terrorist money and listen to terrorist phone calls?
Yes. But I value personal integrity, government shall stay out of my conversations. In 20 years we might have a comunist regime scanning tapes to find dissidents.

3) Do you believe the world would be safer with Saddam in power?
Yes. In his current state.

4) Do you think it is fair the people who use government services the least pay the most in taxes?
Not as a rule, no. I think there should be no correlation at all between payed taxes and use of government services.

My government has reduced its support for unemployment to spur unemployed people into work. We have a centralized employment board you must use if you can't find a job yourself. It is nation wide and you don't get to be picky. If you deny job opportunities you will loose your unemployment money. Total loss of assets render your economy to be controlled by "social service". They fix you a place to live and hands out cash or coupons on a weekly basis.

Only sick or unemployed need government services. And they haven't got the same opportunities to pay taxes. So, fair "no" - logical "yes".
5) Do you think it is fair the people who use government the most pay the least in taxes?
Can't figure out how this isn't the same as #4, but reversed.

 

[red states rule]

Eric:

Question one shows how liberals use our court system to impose liberalism on the US via the courts and not through the ballot box

We have liberal Judges here who make insane rulings. For instance New York SC Judge Karen Smith orderd the NY DMV cannot, and shall not, deny licenses to immigrants who cannot prove they are here legally.

We have SC Justice Ginsburg saying she will rely of foreign law to decide US SC cases. She is to base her rulings on the US Constitution and our law - not theirs.

This is what I mean by liberal lunacy from the bench

Dems won won in November did not run as liberals- they knew they would lose


Question two shows how libs are helping terrorists carry out their operation in the name of political correctness. With help from the liberal media (NY times, Washington Post, CNN) terrorists now know about secret programs that helped in capturing them and stoping their money flow. One has to ask would you rather let people be killed to protect the "rights" of terrorists?

Question three : If that is the case, what about the mass graves found through Iraq, the rape rooms, torture chambers, funding of terrorist bombers, and training camps in the north? The UN did nothing to stop him and allowed the Oil fo Food to fund his terrorist programs and his lifetyle. Saddma ignored the cease fire from the first Gulf war, and told the UN to go &^%$ off

Question 4 and five: The people who are the producers in the US pay over 50% of their income to fund the social programs that are near and dear to libs
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less then 4% of all federal income taxes. Libs savage the "rich", yet they are the one who pay for their insane government handouts and give aways

The questions are worder to make this point

 

[ErikViking]

Okay.

Question two shows how libs are helping terrorists carry out their operation in the name of political correctness. With help from the liberal media (NY times, Washington Post, CNN) terrorists now know about secret programs that helped in capturing them and stoping their money flow. One has to ask would you rather let people be killed to protect the "rights" of terrorists?

A tough one. Information is to be handled very carfully. As much as I like terrorists tracked, I don't want to end up in category in some file. Governments change and the value of the information stored change. So basically listen but don't record is my POV here.


Question three : If that is the case, what about the mass graves found through Iraq, the rape rooms, torture chambers, funding of terrorist bombers, and training camps in the north? The UN did nothing to stop him and allowed the Oil fo Food to fund his terrorist programs and his lifetyle. Saddma ignored the cease fire from the first Gulf war, and told the UN to go &^%$ off

It was a joke! Saddams current state is "dead". And the world is a safer place without him.


Question 4 and five: The people who are the producers in the US pay over 50% of their income to fund the social programs that are near and dear to libs
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less then 4% of all federal income taxes. Libs savage the "rich", yet they are the one who pay for their insane government handouts and give aways

Those figures needs to be monitored and adjusted often. One thing is that I think the government should be swift in making changes. Some number go up: Make a change. Some others go down: Make another change. Also get rid of monster-programs that eats money without any insight or control.

 

[red states rule]

Lets take these issues one at a time

The programs to track and capture terrorists has been successful. The Us has not been attacked again since 9-11. Yet libs, who care only about hating Pres Bush and keeping their power, are willing to eliminate these programs.

Why?

Libs actually believe if the US showers terrorists with love, understanding, anger management programs, and money they will lay down their guns and bombs and become law abiding citizens of the world

Also, anything Pres Bush is for, the Dems will automatically oppose

Libs have a long history of being on the wrong side of history. I do not know how old you are, but the left savaged Pres Reagan when he called the Soviet Union the "evil empire". Libs screamed how Reagan was going to start WWIII and how we had to sit down and talk to the Soviets

He did not, and he built up the US military until the Soviets could not keep up. The Soviet Union fell, and millions of people now enjoy freedom.

Like the war of terror, libs think we need to talk, reason, and compromise with terrorists. The only way to reason with terrorists is to capture them or kill them. The last thing terrorists want is for these people in the Middle East is get a taste of freedom and capitalism.

It is starting in Iraq. Iraq's economy istarting to boom, people are finding work, and in several provinces the US military is now gone. The lib media has somehow "overlooked" this good news

 

[ErikViking]

Lets take these issues one at a time

The programs to track and capture terrorists has been successful. The Us has not been attacked again since 9-11. Yet libs, who care only about hating Pres Bush and keeping their power, are willing to eliminate these programs.

Why?

Libs actually believe if the US showers terrorists with love, understanding, anger management programs, and money they will lay down their guns and bombs and become law abiding citizens of the world

Also, anything Pres Bush is for, the Dems will automatically oppose

Libs have a long history of being on the wrong side of history. I do not know how old you are, but the left savaged Pres Reagan when he called the Soviet Union the "evil empire". Libs screamed how Reagan was going to start WWIII and how we had to sit down and talk to the Soviets

He did not, and he built up the US military until the Soviets could not keep up. The Soviet Union fell, and millions of people now enjoy freedom.

Like the war of terror, libs think we need to talk, reason, and compromise with terrorists. The only way to reason with terrorists is to capture them or kill them. The last thing terrorists want is for these people in the Middle East is get a taste of freedom and capitalism.

It is starting in Iraq. Iraq's economy istarting to boom, people are finding work, and in several provinces the US military is now gone. The lib media has somehow "overlooked" this good news

Need to rush, basically I agree with you. But I don't like the collection of information for later use. Also

"The last thing terrorists want is for these people in the Middle East is get a taste of freedom and capitalism."

that is probably very true.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

The old man was critically ill. Feeling that death was near, he called his lawyer. "I want to become a Democrat. Get me a change of registration form." "You can do it", the lawyer said, "But why? You'll be dead soon, why do you want to become a Democrat?" "That's my business! Get me the form!"

Four days later, the old man got his registration changed. His lawyer was at his bedside making sure his bill would be paid. Suddenly the old man was racked with fits of coughing, and it was clear that this would be the end. Still curious, the lawyer leaned over and said, "Please, before it's too late, tell me why you wanted to become a Democrat so badly before you died?" In a faint whisper, as he breathed his last, the old man said: "One less Democrat".

good one! here's another:

The Preacher's son

An old southern country preacher had a teenage son, and it was getting time the boy should give some thought to choosing a profession. Like many young men, the boy didn't really know what he wanted to do, and he didn't seem too concerned about it.

One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an experiment. He went into the boy's room and placed on his study table four objects:

- a Bible,
- a silver dollar,
- a bottle of whisky and
- a Playboy magazine

"I'll just hide behind the door," the old preacher said to himself, "and when he comes home from school this afternoon, I'll see which object he picks up. If it's the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what a blessing that would be! If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a businessman, and that would be okay, too. But if he picks up the bottle, he's going to be a no-good drunkard, and, Lord, what a shame that would be. And worst of all, if he picks up that magazine he's gonna be a skirt-chasin' bum."

The old man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son's footsteps as he entered the house whistling and headed for his room. The boy tossed his books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he spotted the objects on the table. With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them.

Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm. He picked up the silver dollar and dropped it into his pocket. He uncorked the bottle and took a big drink while he admired this month's centerfold.

"Lord have mercy," the old preacher disgustedly whispered, "he's gonna be a Democrat Senator!"